Tank supply imbalance

[dm79]

2 hours ago, BMBM said:

Keep it civil or I’ll lock this thread in an instant.

Overmatch is not about ballistics per se but about catastrophic rupture of an affected weak plate when hit by large caliber shot, and yes, it’s in the live version afaik. The only thing about it is that the visual damage model isn’t upgraded to depict the carastrophic effects - however the data is in there.

So, let me get this straight - you’re implying a wish for a near-impervious tank that can survive duels against similar tubes at distances below 1000 m so that you can sit near the objective and pound away? The only tank so capable is the Matilda, through tier 0. There are no such axis beasts until the Jagdtiger and Königstiger arrive in 1944, and even they are vulnerable to certain munitions and from certain aspects. So don’t hold your breath just yet - they are years away.

Greed and haste is usually the bane of most tankers. You’re describing an admittedly normal situation where panzers roll out, usually with very limited SA and no support, from an already invested objective, with predictable results - there are however other ways to skin a cat, as you’re most certainly aware of. Personally I avoid such battles and prefer the long cautious approach.

FTR I’ve had several nice sorties in the IVG/H with 6+ kills and (sometimes) rtb, against opponents who never saw the shot - sometimes as close as 300 m to the AB (not camping mind you), which would be either unlikely or imbalanced and unfair in your book?

The Tiger (and certain other tanks) was a rare beast in the field, while the Sherman was not. That’s why the numbers are so arranged, in keeping with the historical flavor of the game. This is not a perfectly historical reenactment: if it were the ratio would be considerably more adverse for the axis.

Overmatch is totally about ballistics and the effects of ballistics when hitting amour, the plate is not inherently weak, not sure why you have implied that.

Are you sure that it is in the game, the last time i asked about this the answer was not sure or not yet? When was this added to the game? Afaik does not imply you know 100%

I hope you are not confusing this with what we know is in the game already which is within a 10% (i think this was the figure) range of penetration it will create spall?

If it is in the game as you say then i would say it is not working as it should be, or is cut down, as it should be having a larger effect on tanks like the Sherman and nullifying the level of protection sloped hulls should be giving vs tanks with the high velocity guns such as those on the 4g/h Stug G and Tiger. I found the following article that gives a very good description on how it should be working and the calculations. 

https://ruhrpottpatriot.tumblr.com/post/73235077911/crash-course-tank-armour-overmatching-and-why-some#_=_

No i am not saying the Axis needs a tank that is near impervious for the fights under 1k such as the JT or KT, i am saying the Axis need a unit that newer player or non vets can operate in this area and can pen the S76/S75/C3/C7 frontraly while supporting inf with fast turrets and maneuver in such a way as the Sherman tanks, or you change the battles so they are no so town centric, or you model overmatch correctly so the existing tanks guns work as they should then its a non issue as the Stugs and P4s will be picking up this role.

Don't give me the lack of SA lack of close support argument, its rubbish if one side can operate fine without this then other side should not be hindered if this is also not the case, if your tank gives you the ability to operate without this and still dominate which situation is wrong!

Then the next rubbish excuse i always hear, the Tiger was rare and the Sherm's were not, we want to keep an historical flavor, that holds up until you dismiss the historical side when it suits you such as rare ammo being used by some of the Allied tanks to improve penetration levels or they would be useless with standard ammo, how about 1944/45 tanks fighting 1942 tec i could go on and on why the historical argument is a rubbish excuse and used when it fits the narrative such as in this case. Don't get me wrong i agree things should be moved around to help balance the game what i take offence too is this stupid argument being used when its just not a true driver in this game.

You keep saying how we should all be sat out on a flank and that is the problem, like i said if this was truly the fix then why don't you match tanks 1 for 1 as every tank is vulnerable on the flank, this is how you are saying the Axis players should be dealing with the high amount of high tier Allied tanks, [censored] even the t0 French atg can kill the mighty Tiger side on so make the 1 to 1 change or stop tell people to play better to deal with equipment number imbalance you as a team are putting in the game.

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by dm79

[stikyfingr]

Gotta love Bmbm trying to tell DM how to tank. 

You two should go match up somewhere. I know where my money would go. Hehe

Good to see you DM. Shame it's not in the field or in 'the plain'. 

[stikyfingr]

2 hours ago, dfire said:

I usually only play Fridays and Saturdays nowadays. Pretty burned out tbh. Most times I log in the past 6-12 months it's just getting underpop rolled most of the time. Thinking about just hanging it up for awhile, especially now with potthead leaving soon as well.

I'm about mate. Rots will come back when The Finger stops fingering.

[BMBM]

3 hours ago, dm79 said:

Overmatch is totally about ballistics and the effects of ballistics when hitting amour, the plate is not inherently weak, not sure why you have implied that.

Ballistics is about trajectory. Overmatch is about the kinetic effects of a larger diameter shell hitting a thinner armor by a factor of 3 or more.

 

3 hours ago, dm79 said:

Are you sure that it is in the game, the last time i asked about this the answer was not sure or not yet? When was this added to the game? Afaik does not imply you know 100%

Pretty sure but I'll refer to Scotsman. Last I looked at logs overmatch was reported when it occurred.

3 hours ago, dm79 said:

i am saying the Axis need a unit that newer player or non vets can operate in this area and can pen the S76/S75/C3/C7 frontraly

You know that the Panther, the megabeastly Tiger II, Jagdtiger and panzerjäger IV are likely to arrive eventually. None of them are likely to be successfully operated by n00bs or non-vets any more than the Tiger, PzIVG or PzIVH are today. Frontal engagements are by default the absolute worst against any opponent because of likelihood of immediate return fire, sloped armor etc, so I'm not sure why you have that as a criteria. Seems to me you're arguing for a 128mm gun for n00b? Well, it's not going to happen.

3 hours ago, dm79 said:

or you change the battles so they are no so town centric

Not my job, but efforts are underway to spread out and channel combat differently.

3 hours ago, dm79 said:

or you model overmatch correctly so the existing tanks guns work as they should

A 75mm AP will overmatch approximately 25mm of armor. 105 mm (StuH) will overmatch about 30-35 mm armor. Not sure what your expectations are.

3 hours ago, dm79 said:

Don't give me the lack of SA lack of close support argument, its rubbish if one side can operate fine without this then other side should not be hindered if this is also not the case, if your tank gives you the ability to operate without this and still dominate which situation is wrong!

No Allied tank will survive very long by taking the beeline route straight to the objective, alone or in company, against even the lowliest Pz3H or Pz3L if the latter simply uses a few minutes of his time to setup a flank ambush. It's not rocket science. If you think you can do it, be my guest and try.

Listen, the axis have perfectly good tanks which are modelled to measure WRT thickness and slope, interior parts, guns and ammo. Not much we can do about that, nor invent a magical fantasy panzer that is just like the Sherman. Every unit has pros and cons, and it's up to the player to realize the same and make them work for himself. Know your platform and your opponent's, and operate accordingly.

3 hours ago, dm79 said:

Then the next rubbish excuse i always hear, the Tiger was rare and the Sherm's were not

How is this rubbish, pray tell? 

3 hours ago, dm79 said:

you dismiss the historical side when it suits you such as rare ammo being used by some of the Allied tanks

None of the Allied tanks have rare ammunition. We've purposely withheld all specialty ammo (APCBC, APCR) until we can get a system in place where players don't game the game by despawning after having shot off the limited allowance. 

3 hours ago, dm79 said:

how about 1944/45 tanks fighting 1942 tec

Stug IIIG (both variants Dec 42-1945), PzIVH (April 1943), PzIII-N (1943). The Tiger I is for all intents and purposes identical through 1943 and 1944. The Allies do not have any 1945 tanks. The M4A3 (1944) was produced before my time, likely because there was NO counterpart to the then-plentiful Tiger. For the same reason, the Firefly and Achilles were produced because the Brits had nothing beyond the vanilla 75mm in Churchills and Crusader III 6pdr to go against the Tiger. Happy times for the Axis, bad times for the game at large.

 

3 hours ago, dm79 said:

You keep saying how we should all be sat out on a flank and that is the problem,

If you don't prefer to be sat out on the flanks then there's your problem in a nutshell. Yes, I know YOU are

 

[jwilly]

Some of the argument-stream here seems like "playing is only fun if it's with equipment that assuredly dominates in frontal engagements, so if that's not available to us, why play?". 

OTOH, the "1942 tanks vs. 1944 tanks" argument is strong. It's time for a separate T4, with the Firefly and 17 pounder Achilles moved there.

[BMBM]

2 minutes ago, jwilly said:

OTOH, the "1942 tanks vs. 1944 tanks" argument is strong. It's time for a separate T4, with the Firefly and 17 pounder Achilles moved there.

I fully support that, as well as half-tiers to make the nuances more pronounced. Alas, it's not my call.

[jwilly]

Historically, a few 1942 Tigers went up against larger numbers of 1942 vanilla Shermans, M10s and lesser equipment. Historically, those Tigers didn't wipe the map because they broke down, or hit AT mines, or their crews lost their nerve after all their support was stripped away and they were alone.

CRS has said in the past that they don't think modeling reliability and breakdowns can be done in a marketable game.

Maybe AT mines will come someday, but apparently not yet.

How about modeling quantified morale, as an objectively manageable game-factor separate from whatever internal-to-the-player psychological considerations may be present? If you're operating with proximal support...subject to easily understood rules that define what that means...you can press forward. If not, your morale factor begins to drop. If your morale gets too low, you can't move closer to the objective, your shooting is slower and less accurate, and possibly other effects for infantry. And there would be defined factors that would boost morale and effectiveness faster/more strongly than just support-proximity.

 

[delems]

*** That’s why the numbers are so arranged, in keeping with the historical flavor of the game.

I think you have mistaken what historical flavor of the game means.

Germans had what, 41 destroyers for the entire war?  Britain like 400 ish if I recall?

So, does that mean germans get 1 DD and brits get 10 in their spawn list?  No.

germans get 1 and brit get 5? No.

 

Those are grossly imbalanced and will make for no game - but they are historical.

Our current German DD spawn list is 5 - I think every nation gets 5.

Should brits get 50 DDs then?  No, again, maybe historical - completely game breaking.

What I mean about historical flavor is if germans get 5 DD, I can fully see giving brits 6 in their spawn list.

That way, they get more as they historically did; they will have the advantage; but, it isn't game breaking.

Historical flavor means a bit more, 10% - 20% maybe?  Not double or triple.

 

usa tank list (1 ab garrison) should be 5 s76 (possibly 6) and 12 s75, vrs German 4/10.  That gives the usa their flavor of more tanks, but isn't a game breaking 12 to 4 and 18 to 10.  And yes, remove the 38t, IIC, IIIF, IVD, IIIB from the spawn list if need.

 

BTW: on a side note, tier 3 germans get 7 IVG and 3 IVH; shouldn't that move to 3 IVG and 7 IVH for tier 4 on?

Edited May 26, 2021 by delems

[BMBM]

11 minutes ago, delems said:

Should brits get 50 DDs then?  No, again, maybe historical - completely game breaking.

Considering that there are fewer DD captains than vessels in the spawnlist, any number we’d come up with would make precious little difference.

There is no tier 4 - yet.

What’s the use of X many tanks if you don’t have people to spawn them? A deep inventory is no guarantee for success. Or if a dm79 is sitting on a flank and picking them off at his leisure? It’s not like we’re seeing massive 20+ tank assaults any more, and if we did we should all be rejoicing. Population (im)balance is what moves the map plain and simple.

[jwilly]

18 minutes ago, delems said:

*** That’s why the numbers are so arranged, in keeping with the historical flavor of the game.

I think you have mistaken what historical flavor of the game means. (...) What I mean about historical flavor is if germans get 5 DD, I can fully see giving brits 6 in their spawn list. That way, they get more as they historically did; they will have the advantage; but, it isn't game breaking.Historical flavor means a bit more, 10% - 20% maybe?  Not double or triple.

The destroyer models are exactly equal, and both sides have about equal numbers of DD players in any given battle. The above analysis only applies to those conditions.

The same analysis could be applied to tanks if Sherman 76s and Tigers were technically equal, and the two sides had about equal numbers of tank players in any given battle.

Neither of those conditions is true, though.

 

[delems]

*** What’s the use of X many tanks if you don’t have people to spawn them?

There were 4 s76 at Fresnes last night. (and yes, at one time all spawned in)

And that is faulty logic.

The first 4 spawn in - trade with the 4 tigers in Fresnes.

Then, they spawn 4 more s76......   Number of tanks does make a difference.

 

*** There is no tier 4 - yet.

Go type .rdp in game..... says tier 4.

Edited May 26, 2021 by delems

[delems]

*** and the two sides had about equal numbers of tank players

Never going to control player numbers in game or what they doing - so that can be removed from any calculation.

Sure, tiger does appear better than the s76, hence the maybe 6; not just 5.

Conversely then, the IVG needs to be upped (or s75 lowered) as the s75 absolutely is beating them in the game.  So, not 12 to 10; 11 to 10.

 

*** The destroyer models are exactly equal

You get the point of my post - maybe using DD as the example wasn't the best choice.  Are rifles exactly equal in game?  No, but close enough.

Edited May 26, 2021 by delems

[jwilly]

Let's suppose that a given tank battle has about equal numbers of players on each side...say, four.

All of the German players play Tigers, all of the Allied players spawn S76s. 

Obviously that's an uneven match-up based on lethality stats.

Statistically, the German players will prevail and wipe the Allied tanks, but maybe with some attrition of the Tiger numbers.

So how many times would the original four Tigers have to go up against four S76s before sometimes there'd be one Tiger left and no S76s, and sometimes one S76 and no Tigers?

That's the correct spawnlist analysis. If the two sides typically have about equal numbers of players in a given battle using that equipment type, the side with statistically inferior equipment has to be allocated enough of it (in excess of their likely number of players) that those players can re-spawn enough times that the eventual battle outcome is a toss-up.

[delems]

*** If the two sides typically have about equal numbers of players in a given battle using that equipment type, the side with statistically inferior equipment has to be allocated enough of it (in excess of their likely number of players) that those players can re-spawn enough times that the eventual battle outcome is a toss-up.

Yep.  And, maybe 1 or 2 more (depending on unit type) to impart historical flavor if needed -- and if it isn't too game unbalancing.

Edited May 26, 2021 by delems

[jwilly]

8 minutes ago, delems said:

Never going to control player numbers in game or or what they doing - so that can be removed from any calculation.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on in spawnlist construction.

The goal is to determine what it takes for the two sides to have about equal likelihoods of prevailing. given the typical numbers of players involved on each side...because that's how the game works.

The goal is not to assume some theoretical population condition where each side has enough players to spawn their entire spawnlist at once, then if that population condition isn't met, just to accept whatever occurs.

[delems]

*** The goal is not to assume some theoretical population condition

Disagree.

The first question in designing the list should be "Given equal players of equal skill opposing each other, is it balanced".

In fact, this always has to be the case - design around an even fight condition.

Edited May 26, 2021 by delems

[BMBM]

Define the even fight. Define equal skill.

I get it, axis want more Tigers and less Allied tanks that can kill them. One less Sherman, maybe two, and everything will be allright.

1 minute ago, dfire said:

Just out of curiosity, what is your plan to help bring back axis tankers and/or make tanking more appealing to existing axis players?

To continue what I’ve been doing for the past five years: add more diversity and complete the vehicle set through to at least end of 1944. I want the beasts as much as you do.

[dm79]

1 hour ago, BMBM said:

A 75mm AP will overmatch approximately 25mm of armor. 105 mm (StuH) will overmatch about 30-35 mm armor. Not sure what your expectations are.

I would need to work out the numbers but take your  -25mm on an effective plate thickness of 109mm this is huge it suddenly takes a tank that can take hits to the hull from most Axis tanks and atgs unless at very close ranges like under 100 meters to one that can now be penetrated by almost every gun they meet at short to long range out to about 1km as it would be around 84mm: 

 

Then you have units with the ability to fight in that area under 1k i was saying about.

Edited May 26, 2021 by dm79

[delems]

*** Define the even fight. Define equal skill.

Come on, you know exactly what this means.

Take current spawn list - 12 s76 vrs 4 tigers.

if 2 dm79 take out s76, and 2 dm79 take out tigers - and then battle what will happen?

(Each time one dies, they respawn if they have tanks left)

Do that match best of 7 --- 12 s76 and 4 tigers ----  I'd guess the 12 s76 will win all 7.

Now, reduce to 11 s76 and repeat best of 7.  Keep reducing the s76 until the best of 7 match resolves as 4-3 or 3-4 a couple times.

That is an even fight with even skill.

 

Then repeat the above exercise with 18 s75 and 10 IVG/H.

 

 

In fact, just take 60 dm79 - let them spawn the entire USA tank list. (1 ab garrison)

Then take 60 dm79 and have them spawn the entire German tank list. (1 ab garrison)

Have them battle - best of 7; what will the result be?

Edited May 26, 2021 by delems

[jwilly]

25 minutes ago, delems said:

*** The goal is not to assume some theoretical population condition

Disagree.

The first question in designing the list should be "Given equal players of equal skill opposing each other, is it balanced".

In fact, this always has to be the case - design around an even fight condition.

Obviously we both have long tenures in and around the game, so there's no point in arguing over credentials or which of us knows better. If we have fundamentally different understandings of CRS's criteria for spawnlist development, maybe we should just let them tell us the correct answer.

[fidd]

22 minutes ago, delems said:

*** Define the even fight. Define equal skill.

Come on, you know exactly what this means.

Take current spawn list - 12 s76 vrs 4 tigers.

if 2 dm79 take out s76, and 2 dm79 take out tigers - and then battle what will happen?

(Each time one dies, they respawn if they have tanks left)

 

Do that match best of 7 --- 12 s76 and 4 tigers ----  I'd guess the 12 s76 will win all 7.

Now, reduce to 11 s76 and repeat best of 7.  Keep reducing the s76 until the best of 7 match resolves as 4-3 or 3-4 a couple times.

That is an even fight with even skill.

 

Then repeat the above exercise with 18 s75 and 10 IVG/H.

CRS Know full well that uber kit attracts disproportionate numbers. All that has happened here is that the previous adequate axis population benefit from having Tigers crashed due to perceptions then becoming realities during the Matilda episode during which the loss rate of Matildas on missions was grossly represented as overly low, and 88's were deliberately left in the barn by players who knew full well they were most necessary to be used, who then posted endlessly and ad nauseam about the "Matty problem". This S76 v Tiger is no different. Of course, if you are underpop, you will take a caning, if you then blame it on the s76 numbers, rather than the pop change, the latter will not improve greatly and the beatings continue.

The game has always suffered from this. Provided the initial numbers in tier 0 are broadly equal across all TZ's, the game is fair. We know from previous campaigns that it's possible to come back, albeit rarely, from a near defeat, and gain a victory. Perhaps the axis posters  currently concreting the perception that the game is unfair should concentrate on that?

Perceptions drive population maintenance, and forum posts and in-game activism by HC's drive perception. If the same HC'ers reduce their in game positive activity, play less, and post reinforcing negative perceptions, of course one will lose.

 

[drkmouse]

11 minutes ago, fidd said:

CRS Know full well that uber kit attracts disproportionate numbers. All that has happened here is that the previous adequate axis population benefit from having Tigers crashed due to perceptions then becoming realities during the Matilda episode during which the loss rate of Matildas on missions was grossly represented as overly low, and 88's were deliberately left in the barn by players who knew full well they were most necessary to be used, who then posted endlessly and ad nauseam about the "Matty problem". This S76 v Tiger is no different. Of course, if you are underpop, you will take a caning, if you then blame it on the s76 numbers, rather than the pop change, the latter will not improve greatly and the beatings continue.

The game has always suffered from this. Provided the initial numbers in tier 0 are broadly equal across all TZ's, the game is fair. We know from previous campaigns that it's possible to come back, albeit rarely, from a near defeat, and gain a victory. Perhaps the axis posters  currently concreting the perception that the game is unfair should concentrate on that?

Perceptions drive population maintenance, and forum posts and in-game activism by HC's drive perception. If the same HC'ers reduce their in game positive activity, play less, and post reinforcing negative perceptions, of course one will lose.

 

a)  88's were NOT dleiblety lef tin teh barn ( people stopped using  them beucse they  deied evenfore levign the bnrn, stop that lie..

and not it was not  the AXIS fault for the crahs stop blaiming teh victum.... ( axis  like alied adaprt to wha tyou have, prob is  what  aixs has canot sotp what teh alies have

150% ++ the  # of top end tanksk as axis,  44/45 amror vs  a 42   tank etc etc etc. prob is   allies wil rol in tier 0 ans 1 as long as  they have  matty in there  bridages. (  facts who we cnaot stoip them  unless we are op opop)

tier 3 is only  tier axis is  "even" with alies prob by  then  axis is pushed back abnd alies  have   our fanoties in ruins ( aka  even less supply vs allies)

once the fly etc come in in 13 to 4  number  why bother??

[drkmouse]

58 minutes ago, delems said:

*** Define the even fight. Define equal skill.

Come on, you know exactly what this means.

Take current spawn list - 12 s76 vrs 4 tigers.

if 2 dm79 take out s76, and 2 dm79 take out tigers - and then battle what will happen?

(Each time one dies, they respawn if they have tanks left)

 

Do that match best of 7 --- 12 s76 and 4 tigers ----  I'd guess the 12 s76 will win all 7.

Now, reduce to 11 s76 and repeat best of 7.  Keep reducing the s76 until the best of 7 match resolves as 4-3 or 3-4 a couple times.

That is an even fight with even skill.

 

Then repeat the above exercise with 18 s75 and 10 IVG/H.

 

 

In fact, just take 60 dm79 - let them spawn the entire USA tank list. (1 ab garrison)

Then take 60 dm79 and have them spawn the entire German tank list. (1 ab garrison)

Have them battle - best of 7; what will the result be?

alies wil win everytime...

[fidd]

6 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

a)  88's were NOT dleiblety lef tin teh barn ( people stopped using  them beucse they  deied evenfore levign the bnrn, stop that lie..

and not it was not  the AXIS fault for the crahs stop blaiming teh victum.... ( axis  like alied adaprt to wha tyou have, prob is  what  aixs has canot sotp what teh alies have

150% ++ the  # of top end tanksk as axis,  44/45 amror vs  a 42   tank etc etc etc. prob is   allies wil rol in tier 0 ans 1 as long as  they have  matty in there  bridages. (  facts who we cnaot stoip them  unless we are op opop)

tier 3 is only  tier axis is  "even" with alies prob by  then  axis is pushed back abnd alies  have   our fanoties in ruins ( aka  even less supply vs allies)

once the fly etc come in in 13 to 4  number  why bother??

It is not a lie. Delems admitted here publicly that this was the case, before then retracting the remark, presumably in response to a reaction from other axis poster's who realised it was a very damaging admission. It was also entirely consistent with what myself and several other players were beginning to suspect, that the campaign concerned was being "thrown" via generating campaign-specific "stats" thus derived in order to pressure CRS into changing TOE's. This partially succeeded in that that within a campaign or two the Pzjgr 1 was rushed into game. I do not mind the Pzjgr 1, but I take an exceedingly dim view of how stats were deliberately massaged to that end.

I have no doubt that many axis players were completely oblivious to what was occurring, and were entirely blameless in this. They were nevertheless affected by the unremittingly negative diet of posts which created the impression of loss rates for the Matilda wholly unrepresentative of the tank v tank stats being advanced by messrs Delems, Vonopo and others. Despite allied posters indicating the typical loss rate was circa 70% across most AO's - a figure that later turned out to be correct within a percentage point or two - the damage had been done, and several campaign losses for the axis were consequent.

This Sh76 deal is no different. If you have axis posters hammering the "point" that it is imbalanced, then that comes to pass as a reaility, regardless of the situation initially, a self-fulfilling prophecy if you will. We've had plenty of campaigns where the axis pop has been sufficient to win campaigns despite the numbers of Sh76's. The only thing that changed in the interim, was the negative posting surrounding the Matilda, and the attendant collapse in axis pop, and a modest climb in allied numbers.

Briefing against your own side's kit is silly. CRS has the long term data to know the difference between a pop change due to a TOE change, and one consequent from a forum campaign to try and erode the other side's TOE by understating loss rates of enemy tanks through selective use of stats, especially where such selectivism is limited to 1 nation, and takes no account of weaknesses in others, eg the Arfr.

The best line axis could have taken regarding problems with operating the 88 in tier 0, would have been to address the unholy trio of marking efficiency, terrain features and EWS range for trucks, all of which conspire to make HT's pulling out 88's (or indeed any nations defensive ATG's)  a less than effective routine if one was responding to EWS. Pointing out to CRS that the axis were reliant on 88's in tier 0, might have helped, and indeed truck EWS has now been extended. Such remarks might not have resulted in the collapse of axis numbers, instead of 4 straight campaign losses.

 

 

 

 

[BMBM]

The Pzjäger I has been on the charts for a long time. As have the Panther, and several other notable [undisclosed] platforms for both sides. It’s only just that it was added, similar to the long-needed Pz3L (which seems to be mostly disregarded as ineffecient despite being anything but).

The 88 is hamstrung by slow push speed and towing requirement, plus being rather conspicuous even before it gets to fire - when it becomes yet more conspicuous prey. More 88s or faster 88s isn’t the solution here - it’s population at large. And less vegetation.